Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Samaritan script/proto-hebrew
  • Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:05:00 +0000

On 20/03/2005 09:45, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

...


(Thank you for all of this, no particular comments on the earlier parts)

But since the facts seem to be that there was a split in the
5th century and there was one in the 1st century, if you want to state that there was at least one period of reconciliation between these dates, you need to provide evidence for this.


The Pentateuch. In any case, you are misusing my term for
split. A schism after which reconcilation was not possible
is more of what I meant.


OK, the Pentateuch, in more or less its final form. But what is its date? That is another thorny issue with no easy reconciliation. And what is the date of the separation of the Jewish (proto-MT) and Samaritan Pentateuchs? There is evidence that this was much later than that of a deep religious division between Jerusalem and Samaria. So, yes, that supports the theory that there was a split but not a final schism for many centuries. But then one can only know in retrospect whether reconciliation is ever possible. If in the next century the remaining Samaritans become fully united with the modern Jews, does that in fact change what happened in the Second Temple period from a schism into a mere split?

...

It seems to me to be current in the scholarship for some time
now (use of Jewish to denote the Aramaic script). And since
Hebrew is reserved for the different parallel line of development,
I doubt any scholar would call Aramaic script Hebrew. If you
are speaking of modern script, that's different. But I'm
speaking of what scholars use in referring to ancient times.
You should also be wary of the use of "Hebrew" where it denotes the language of the scroll, not the script.


It is simply irresponsible to try to drive a wedge between descriptions of ancient and modern scripts in this way. The terminology with Naveh and you use, calling "Hebrew" without qualification a script which is quite different from what every contemporary reader of Hebrew calls Hebrew script, is irresponsible deliberate obfuscation.

Let me quote Peter Daniels on this, from his Appendix in "Comparative Semitic Linguistics" by Patrcik Bennett, which happens to be at hand. Daniels is well recognised as one of the world's foremost experts on writing systems.

"... By the sixth century BCE there could be distinguished a Canaanite and an Aramaic script. The former died out almost entirely (surviving only in Samaritan), to be replaced by the latter, which by the time of the Qumran documents (as early as 200 BCE), if not the Egyptian Aramaic ones (up to 400 BCE), had nearly achieved the shape of today's square Hebrew letters."


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page